Letters to the Editor - April 15, 2013

Monday

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:15 AMApr 16, 2013 at 8:27 AM

To the editor: It is disappointing to read in Foster’s the letters and editorials from former and current state legislators who are advocating the legalization of marijuana. Witness the recent community commentary from former State Senator Burt Cohen entitled, “Legalize pot, don’t expand gambling.” These individuals are likely unaware of the physical and sociological effects that could occur from the legalization of delta-9-tetrahydrocanibanol (THC), the active drug ingredient in marijuana.

Physical changes from ingesting include: increased heartbeat, rise in blood pressure, lowering of body temperature, and reddening of the eyes. There are definite long term effects associated with ingestion of the drug. Brain cells show alteration. The space between brain cells is widened and thickened. Electrical brain tracings show abnormal electrical brain discharge. The ability to think clearly is impaired, especially when the job at hand involves reasoning, logic, and abstract thinking.

THC is fat soluble, and remains in the body for approximately 30 days. A joint per week will keep the body constantly under the influence. Time and space are misjudged. Personally, I do not want to share the road with a driver who uses marijuana.

The bottom line for the user is that bad trips, known in the vernacular as a “bummer,” leading to depression and paranoia, are possible with marijuana.

To suggest marijuana smoking is comparable to tobacco smoking is disingenuous. Marijuana smoke contains 50% more irritating and cancer producing chemicals than tobacco smoke. Pointing to alcohol abuse is another weak justification for legalization. An occasional cocktail or beer does not correlate with marijuana use. Other than medical prescription use, there is one reason associated with the ingestion of THC and that is for the purpose of getting high, nothing more and nothing less.

Randal Heller

Barrington

To the editor: How many more innocent lives are Progressives/Liberals/Democrats willing to sacrifice to further their political goals of controlling people and making them dependent on government?

While Democrat gun control proposals in Washington and Concord wouldn’t have stopped the Newtown massacre, they would make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves from assault, rape, robbery, murder and other crimes. Similar delusional Democrat policies, e.g., their counter-productive “Gun Free Zones” and highly restrictive gun controls that leave people defenseless, have already sacrificed far too many children and adults.

The failures of liberal counter-productive policies do not justify more counter-productive liberal policies.

Experience shows that criminals get guns if they want them, regardless of the law. Registrations, universal background checks, magazine size limitations, gun bans, etc., don’t effectively restrain criminals, but they interfere with the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Making people defenseless does not protect them from criminals.

In other countries gun controls and confiscation don’t reduce crime, some crimes increase significantly. E.g., there are more armed robberies in Britain now than before their gun confiscation, British citizens are more likely to be crime victims and are being attacked in their homes six times as often as US citizens.

Most crimes are committed by people with a criminal history. Rather than restricting the rights of the people who are almost always the intended victims, politicians should focus on locking up the people who actually harm others.

There are about 780,000 violent crimes annually. Estimates are that between 1,500,000 (Clinton Justice Department number) and 2,500,000 crimes are prevented annually by armed citizens. Guns are used 150 to 240 times more often to stop a crime than to murder. Homeowner’s guns are a far greater threat to criminals than to homeowners or their families, despite false claims to the contrary. Armed law abiding citizens save lives.

Democrats frequently justify gun controls by claiming that an intended victim or helper might shoot innocent bystanders. If someone is shooting people around me, I’d be happy for anyone who shows up to try to save us. And, according to a Newsweek article by George Will, the police are five times more likely to shoot a bystander than a civilian trying to stop a criminal.

Tell politicians in Washington and Concord not to make more defenseless victims. Tell politicians to do things that actually reduce violence: lock up hardened criminals and stop returning them prematurely to the streets, ensure that the mentally ill who pose a threat to others get help, stop illegal immigration because illegal aliens disproportionately commit crimes, and encourage more law abiding people to prepare to defend themselves.

Don Ewing

Meredith

To the editor: I think it is wrong that our real estate taxes are used by the Dover School Department to pay for lobbyists in Concord. How does that expenditure improve the education of our children?

We expect school Superintendent Briggs Badger to present a budget to the School Board that spends money wisely. We also expect School Board Chairman Rocky Andrea and Vice Chair Amanda Russell to review the spending proposed by the Superintendent and apply good judgment.

These are the three people responsible for hiding a surplus of $700,000 and apparently for the purpose of overriding the spending cap.

Their lack of transparency plus approval of questionable items of spending are raising questions about what other expenditures in the budget may be questionable.